Blood Cancer Journal (Dec 2024)

Evaluation of gecacitinib vs hydroxyurea in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis: final analysis results from a randomized phase 3 study

  • Yi Zhang,
  • Hu Zhou,
  • Shanshan Suo,
  • Junling Zhuang,
  • Linhua Yang,
  • Aili He,
  • Qingchi Liu,
  • Xin Du,
  • Sujun Gao,
  • Yarong Li,
  • Yan Li,
  • Yuqing Chen,
  • Wen Wu,
  • Huanling Zhu,
  • Guangsheng He,
  • Mei Hong,
  • Qian Jiang,
  • Zhongxing Jiang,
  • Hongmei Jing,
  • Jishi Wang,
  • Na Xu,
  • Lingling Yue,
  • Cuiping Zheng,
  • Zeping Zhou,
  • Chenghao Jin,
  • Xin Li,
  • Lin Liu,
  • Yajing Xu,
  • Dengshu Wu,
  • Feng Zhang,
  • Jin Zhang,
  • Liqing Wu,
  • Hewen Yin,
  • Binhua Lv,
  • Zhijian Xiao,
  • Jie Jin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-024-01202-8
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract To compare the efficacy and safety of gecacitinib (also known as jaktinib) with hydroxyurea (HU) in treating myelofibrosis (MF) patients. In this multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial (ZGJAK016), intermediate- or high-risk primarily JAK inhibitor naïve MF patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gecacitinib (100 mg twice a day, BID) or HU (500 mg BID). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SVR35) from baseline at week 24. Secondary endpoints included the best spleen response rate, the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50), anemia improvement, and safety profile. At 24 weeks, the SVR35 was reached by 64.8% of patients on gecacitinib (46/71), compared to 26.5% on HU (9/34), P = 0.0002. The best spleen response rates were also superior for gecacitinib at 81.7%, vs 32.4% for HU, P < 0.0001. The TSS50 rates were 62.0% for gecacitinib- and 50% for HU-treated patients. Among non-transfusion-dependent patients with baseline hemoglobin (HGB) ≤ 100 g/L, 31.0% (13/42) in the gecacitinib group showed a ≥20 g/L increase in HGB, compared to 15.0% (3/20) in HU group. The common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including anemia (26.8% vs 44.1%), thrombocytopenia (15.5% vs 32.4%), leukopenia (2.8% vs 20.6%), and neutropenia (1.4% vs 20.6%), were less frequent with gecacitinib than HU. Treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs was lower in gecacitinib (7.0%) compared to HU (11.8%). Gecacitinib demonstrates superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to HU, making it a promising treatment option for managing MF, particularly in patients with anemia (This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT04617028)).